30291_U01.qxd 6/7/06 10:23 AM Page 1 1 Facts Matter Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to ge- netic engineering to food additives, government relies on the im- partial perspective of science for guidance. President George H. W. Bush, 1990 he U.S. government runs on information—vast amounts of it. Re- searchers at the National Weather Service gather and analyze mete- Torological data so they know when to issue severe-weather advi- sories. Specialists at the Federal Reserve Bank collect and analyze economic data to determine when to raise or lower interest rates. Experts at the Centers for Disease Control examine bacteria and viral samples to help guard against a large-scale outbreak of disease. The public relies upon the accuracy of such data and upon the integrity of the researchers who gather and analyze it. Equally important, the analysis of fact-based data is pivotal to the government’s policymaking process. When compelling evidence suggests a threat to human health from the presence of miniscule amounts of a contaminant in the water supply, the federal government may move to tighten drinking water standards to protect the public. When data indi- cate structural problems in aging bridges in the Interstate highway sys- tem, the federal government may move to allocate emergency repair funds. When the population of an animal species perilously declines, of- ficials may opt to list it for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Given the myriad pressing problems involving complex scientific and technological data—from the AIDS pandemic to the threat of nuclear pro- –s liferation—the public expects government experts and researchers to pro- –o 1 Copyrighted Material 30291_U01.qxd 6/7/06 10:23 AM Page 2 2 FACTS MATTER vide a high caliber of data and analysis, perhaps higher than ever before. One might imagine that impartial researchers with expertise in gathering and analyzing specialized data would be prized for the important role they play in laying the foundation for an informed policymaking process. And yet the administration of George W. Bush has badly undermined this cornerstone of fact-based data. Scientists, policymakers, and tech- nical specialists affiliated with nearly every federal agency have docu- mented in detail the ways in which Bush administration officials, deter- mined to push through particular political agendas, have systematically ignored, suppressed, or distorted the information gathered and analyzed on its behalf by federal agencies and advisory panels. As this book will demonstrate, top administration officials have rewritten the work of government scientists on climate change. They have fired leading experts on scientific advisory panels and replaced them with ideologues whose credentials are often questionable at best. And they have routinely tried to shelve government reports whose findings conflict with administration policies. Politics always plays a central role in science and technology policy- making. Every administration is influenced to some degree by political considerations on matters of science and technology—as it should be. What distinguishes the Bush administration, however, is a dramatic shift: its willingness to stifle or distort scientific evidence from its own federal agencies that runs counter to its preferred policies—and ideologies. This is a troubling development, unprecedented in both scope and pervasiveness. At the highest levels, the Bush administration has allowed partisan considerations and the influence of special interests to permeate the traditionally nonpartisan mechanisms through which the govern- ment gathers, analyzes, and disseminates information. Reasonable people may well disagree over many of the Bush administration’s politi- cal choices. There is, however, a crucial difference between disputes over policy and the manipulation of the policymaking process itself. Parti- sanship aside, there should be little disagreement about the need for cred- ibility in the governmental policymaking process. To understand this distinction, it is important to recognize the differ- ence between policymaking and the practice of scientific assessment and s– analysis. o– Policymaking is about making choices, often difficult ones. How much Copyrighted Material 30291_U01.qxd 6/7/06 10:23 AM Page 3 FACTS MATTER 3 of a given contaminant should be allowed in drinking water? Should the government require seat belts in automobiles? Should it invest in a new weapon system? To make policy choices, government officials frequently must balance the needs of one constituency against another—a process that embodies the very definition of “politics” itself. Proposed regulations to improve worker safety and health, for example, need to be weighed against the potential economic burden they might place upon small busi- ness owners. Tighter auto emissions standards must be considered against the added production costs they will impose upon the auto industry and, in turn, upon consumers if it means higher vehicle prices. Scientific assessment and technical analysis are quite a different mat- ter. These practices are about finding the best answers we can to specific questions about phenomena and causality in the world. They are, in other words, about identifying and understanding facts as accurately as possible. Scientific information and technical analysis thus provide the underpinning of the policymaking process. Most governmental policy- makers understand the crucial importance of robust and impartial sources of information. Put simply, good decision makers seek the best facts they can get. The business of scientists and policy analysts is to try to provide decision makers with that crucial foundation. It is worth noting that critics, on both the left and right of the politi- cal spectrum, often make astute points about the inherent biases that can taint scientific research. Conservatives frequently belittle governmental and academic scientists for essentially being too detached from reality: conducting esoteric studies with taxpayer funds and using the trappings of science and inductive reasoning to hide a liberal bias. Critics on the left, meanwhile, tend to emphasize the extent to which scientists, like everyone else, are enmeshed and influenced by their own political and fi- nancial ties. As Richard Lewontin asked in an article on the subject in the New York Review of Books: “Why should we trust scientists, who, after all, have their own political and economic agendas?”1 Notwithstanding the validity of such critiques, they are largely irrel- evant to the case studies of outright distortion and censorship presented here. Clearly, governmental scientists and technical analysts are not in- fallibly objective or unbiased. But the degree to which bias taints these practitioners—whether they are “too aloof in their liberal beliefs” or –s “too entrenched in the elite establishment”—fades to background noise –o Copyrighted Material 30291_U01.qxd 6/7/06 10:23 AM Page 4 4 FACTS MATTER if an entire policymaking system is consciously manipulated for partisan gain. Discussing such issues, given the extraordinary circumstances re- ported by government scientists and technical analysts working in the Bush administration, is rather like conducting an argument about the ex- tent to which pilots normally deviate from their flight plan while riding in an airplane that has just been hijacked. AN UNPRECEDENTED POLITICIZATION Consider one small but telling incident. In November 2003, a National Cancer Institute fact sheet was altered, over government scientists’ ob- jections, to lend credence to a favorite canard of some antiabortion Christian conservatives that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. A number of scientific studies—most notably a highly respected Danish study in the 1990s involving 1.5 million women—have thor- oughly refuted the link.2 And yet, as has frequently occurred in the Bush administration, politics—whether out of ideological conviction or to ap- pease political partisans—trumped peer-reviewed scientific evidence, and a federal agency was pushed to dispense misleading information about a vital matter of women’s health. After a public outcry, including a New York Times editorial labeling the incident “an egregious distor- tion of the evidence,” the National Cancer Institute restored its public in- formation to reflect the well-documented scientific evidence that no con- nection exists between abortion and breast cancer.3 The most notable thing about this incident is that it happened at all. This was not a question of bias or incompetence quietly creeping into the government’s dissemination of scientific information; it reflects a whole- sale effort to mislead the public on behalf of anti-abortion activists. It is one thing for such groups to peddle misinformation on the World Wide Web and elsewhere about the bogus cancer connection to try to frighten women out of having abortions. It is quite another for the National Can- cer Institute to condone the politically motivated manipulation of data. The issue of whether or not one opposes abortion is a moral and po- litical question. The question of whether a link exists between abortion s– and breast cancer is not a political question. It is an empirical question o– about the most up-to-date and best-supported scientific knowledge. Copyrighted Material 30291_U01.qxd 6/7/06 10:23 AM Page 5 FACTS MATTER 5 In the extraordinary climate created by the Bush administration, though, it is not enough for scientists to investigate the facts of a given situation; they now must often explain to policymakers that facts mat- ter in the first place. As the eminent Stanford University scientist Richard N. Zare wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2005, “We must be will- ing to speak out against the threat of making science just a matter of opinion.” “Scientific theories are more than a special set of opinions that the scientific community is trying to push onto the public in opposition to religious beliefs,” noted Zare, who served on the National Science Board under presidents Clinton and Bush senior.